Action brought on 4 June 2013 – Miettinen v Council

(Case T-303/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samuli Miettinen (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts, lawyers, and A. Villette, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the Council of 21 March 2013 refusing to grant full access to document 15309/12 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), as communicated to the applicant on 25 March 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘04/c/01/13’ (the Contested Decision); and

Order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 4(2) second indent and Article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since the Contested Decision is based on a wrong interpretation and application of such provisions, which relate to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice and to the protection of the ongoing decision-making process respectively, as:

Firstly, the Council failed to demonstrate that disclosure of document 15309/12 prejudices its legal service’s ability to defend it in future legal proceedings, and undermines the legislative process;

Secondly, the Council failed to demonstrate that document 15309/12 is particularly sensitive and/or of a wide scope justifying the setting aside of the presumption favouring disclosure of legal opinions in the legislative context;

Thirdly, the Council’s theory of harm is purely hypothetical. It is factually, as well as legally, unfounded considering that the content of the advice contained in document 15309/12, a consensus among Member States which in line with the legal service’s analysis, was public when the Contested Decision was taken; and

Fourthly, the Council misapplied the overriding public interest test when invoking Article 4(3) first subparagraph when it considered only the perceived risks to its decision-making process associated to disclosure and not the positive effects of such disclosure, inter alia, for the legitimacy of the decision-making process and failed to apply the test at all when invoking Article 4(2) second indent.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state adequate reasons under Article 296 TFEU, as the Council did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the Contested Decision.